[governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech?

[Dan Krimm]

At 10:36 AM -0700 9/18/07, Karl Auerbach wrote:

>Let me explain my sense of the word "gentle" - I didn't mean something
>that is lacking compelling force.  I'm helping to restore a 1923
>mainline steam locomotive and sometimes we have to "gently" coerce a
>bolt to turn - often with a 16# sledge hammer and a gasoline torch.  The
>gentleness comes from the fact that the force is applied with care; but
>that bolt *will* turn (else we drag out the cutting torch.)

Okay, I think I understand: smaller steps rather than larger steps, but
with no less strength of purpose.

Nevertheless, the strength of purpose requires deciding jurisdiction of
where such governance should be located institutionally.  That is, where
does the coercive power lie, and who controls it, and how?  This seems to
remain confusing and contentious for the IG community at this time.



>Now, in the area of the end-to-end principle I agree that here in the US
>the telco/cable duopoly is using all means fair, and more often foul, to
>obliterate any and all threats to their position and profits.  Their
>behaviour is outrageous.
>
>But the answer to that is not a blanket statement that differential
>pricing or differential serves are banned on the net - that would be non
>gentle, and also a failure to recognize that some net services (e.g. low
>jitter transport of packets) does incur real costs (such as leaving
>links underutilized so that they have the capacity to handle traffic
>bursts, or doing the complex work of traffic engineering.)  A "gentle"
>kind of governance would be something that tries to find guiding
>principles and finds the right balance.

Like perhaps reintroducing open access/interconnection rules to broadband
ISPs in the US.  Except that the telco/cablecos would not view that as
"gentle" at all...  ;-)

In the case of such strategies, sometimes "gentle" means "under the radar"
-- the problem with that is that everything is over the radar for
telcos/cablecos, but more likely to be under the radar for the general
public, making it harder for CS to mobilize the public without seeming
shrill.

It's a difficult equation to get to add up, no silver bullets, mega-corps
generally have the advantage because they have the resources to be keenly
aware of all ramifications and to plan ahead for the long term in secrecy
to get a head start before CS catches on.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

Dan

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance